legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Malone

P. v. Malone
09:30:2007

P. v. Malone




Filed 9/7/06 P. v. Malone CA2/5





NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS







California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION FIVE











THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


MAURICE GARY MALONE,


Defendant and Appellant.



B187956


(Los Angeles County Super. Ct.


No. SA055941)



APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Stephanie Sautner, Judge. Affirmed.


Law Offices of John F. Schuck and John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.


Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


______________________________________


Defendant Maurice Gary Malone pled no contest to possession for sale and transportation of cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11351.5, 11352, subd. (a)), following his unsuccessful motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. The trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of three years in state prison for the possession for sale offense,[1] suspended execution of the sentence, and placed defendant on three years of formal probation. In this timely appeal from the judgment, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his car and person, following a traffic stop. We reject this contention and affirm.


STATEMENT OF FACTS


The following information concerning the charged offenses and the search of defendant's vehicle and person comes from the transcript of the preliminary hearing. On March 25, 2005, at 4:45 p.m., Detective Patrick Olivier and Officer Odom were in a parked car on Empire Drive in Los Angeles conducting a surveillance of an apartment building across the street. Some weeks before, police had seized rock cocaine in one of the apartments in that building, pursuant to a search warrant. At approximately 5:00 p.m., the detective saw a black Camaro parked at the apartment building. It drove away down National Boulevard and parked. The Camaro's African-American male driver met shortly with â€





Description Defendant pled no contest to possession for sale and transportation of cocaine base, following his unsuccessful motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. The trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of three years in state prison for the possession for sale offense, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed defendant on three years of formal probation. In this timely appeal from the judgment, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a search of his car and person, following a traffic stop. Court reject this contention and affirm.

Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2026 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2026 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale